How appropriate is the proposition of Neo-Digambara School
Summary
Professor Sagarmal Jain scrutinizes Dr. Hampa Nagarajaiah's proposal that a “Neo‑Digambara” school should be recognised alongside the traditional Digambara, Śvetāmbara and Yāpaniya sects. Nagarajaiah had grouped four Jain versions of the Rāma story—Vimalasūri’s Prakrit Paumacariya, Śvetāmbara versions by Śīlāṅka and Hemacandra, Digambara versions like Jinasena’s Ādipurāṇa and Guṇabhadra’s Uttara‑purāṇa and works like the Padmapurāṇa of Ravisena and Harivaṃśa of Puṇṇāṭa Jinasena—into separate sectarian streams and suggested that the last group constituted a new “Neo‑Digambara” sect. Sagarmal Jain argues that this classification lacks textual or historical support. The Yāpaniya tradition, attested in inscriptions from Kadamba king Mrigesavarman (475–490 CE) and later epigraphs, was an order that combined Digambara and Śvetāmbara traits; the Yāpaniyas worshipped nude images but allowed clothing and believed women and followers of other doctrines could attain liberation, and the order disappeared by the 14th century. Because of this eclecticism, later writers have sometimes labelled Yāpaniya literature “neo‑Digambara,” but Jain notes that none of the authors of the texts in question ever identified themselves with a new sect. He examines epigraphic references to monastic groups such as the Kūrcaka Saṅgha and Mūla Saṅgha and points out that inscriptions list them alongside Śvetāmbaras, Nirgranthas (Digambaras) and Yāpaniyas; there is no reference to a fourth, neo‑Digambara order. Works like Vimalasūri’s Paumacariya are clearly Yāpaniya; Jinasena and Guṇabhadra are Digambaras; Śīlāṅka and Hemacandra are Śvetāmbaras; and the Padmapurāṇa and Harivaṃśa continue the Digambara lineage even if they incorporate earlier Prakrit narratives. He also questions Nagarajaiah’s identification of certain poets and their disciples as neo‑Digambaras, noting that Ravisena, Puṇṇāṭa Jinasena and Hariṣeṇa never claimed such an affiliation. The article concludes that the term “Neo‑Digambara school” is a misreading created by misclassifying Yāpaniya and Digambara literature and that historians should rely on verifiable sectarian claims and epigraphic evidence rather than retrofitting modern categories onto early medieval Jain texts.
Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.
Conclusion
Sagarmal Jain’s analysis shows that there is little justification for positing a separate “Neo‑Digambara” sect. The Yāpaniya order, which blended Digambara and Śvetāmbara practices and allowed clothing while still venerating nude images, was sometimes mischaracterized as ‘neo‑Digambara,’ but no early poet or inscription uses this term. By examining Rāma‑kathā texts and epigraphic evidence, Jain demonstrates that authors like Ravisena and Puṇṇāṭa Jinasena belonged to established Digambara or Yāpaniya traditions. The article urges scholars to avoid creating new sectarian labels for texts unless supported by explicit historical evidence.